06 June 2018

‘Climate Change Has Run Its Course’

George Rebane

[This is the transcript of my regular KVMR commentary broadcast on 6 June 2018.]

Steven Hayward of UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies has put down some observations about climate change (here) that summarize what millions around the world acknowledge daily – namely that “climate change is no longer a pre-eminent policy issue. All that remains is boilerplate rhetoric from the political class, frivolous nuisance lawsuits, and bureaucratic mandates on behalf of special-interest renewable-energy rent seekers.”

Now neither Dr Hayward nor, for that matter, these commentaries have been telling readers and listeners that climate change, formerly sold as global warming, is not happening. Of course it is, and humans are no doubt contributing to this change, but we have nowhere near the impact on climate that hysteria mongers in politics and special interests have been getting all purple-faced about over the last few decades. The supporting consensus or pseudo-science of climate change has failed to live up to the terrible predictions wrested from tortured data and dodgy computer models, neither of which can seem to get their stories straight.

Barraged by all the revelations of data doctoring and missed prognostications, the True Believers have tried all manner of approaches to convince the world’s nations to start economy-crippling decarbonization programs. On national levels there have been a flood of laws passed to lower carbon emissions in both consumption and energy production. But on the international level, since 1988 when the climate hysteria was launched with a series of highly publicized congressional hearings, the UN’s big global warming conferences have been an utter bust. Since then, nations have gathered several times to pay lip service to reducing carbon emissions. But after leaving the conferences and running the numbers on the impact of their promises, none of them have come close to living up to their carbon reduction commitments. And many have actually increased their CO2 outputs.

As Hayward points out, “A good indicator of why climate change as an issue is over can be found early in the text of the Paris Agreement. The “nonbinding” pact declares that climate action must include concern for “gender equality, empowerment of women, and intergenerational equity” as well as “the importance for some of the concept of ‘climate justice.’ ” Yes, you heard that right – the politically correct world is definitely pivoting away from the unconvincing consensus science about global warming to something more fuzzy and currently in vogue – social justice and identity politics issues of which there are an uncounted number just waiting to be raised into people’s consciousnesses. Hayward calls this “the last gasp of a cause that has lost its vitality.”

The downward descent of such politicized attempts at central control was explained years ago in 1972 by political scientist Anthony Downs as “a five-stage cycle through which political issues pass regularly.” The first cycle has experts and activists raising the alarm about a problem, which in then is picked up by the media as the next big story of “global peril and salvation”. This establishes the peril’s priesthood – for global warming it has been Al Gore and Jerry Brown. Third comes the sudden realization that fixing it is going to cost a lot of money, more than anyone had imagined. In the fourth cycle people have become accustomed to the volume of the hysteria, have become convinced that no one can fund the solution, and quietly enter the last cycle, shifting their interest to other more recent and immediate things, which then completes the sequence.

Today no one is really interested in actual global warming solutions as shown by the direction of climate-related philanthropy from the green-leaning foundations. These overwhelmingly fund only “mobilizing public opinion and opposing the fossil fuel industry.” Hayward concludes that “treating climate change as a planet-scale problem, that could be solved only by an international regulatory scheme, transformed the issue into a political creed for committed believers. Causes that live by politics, die by politics.”

My name is Rebane, and I also expand on this and related themes on Rebane’s Ruminations where the transcript of this commentary is posted with relevant links, and where such issues are debated extensively. However, my views are not necessarily shared by KVMR. Thank you for listening.

Comments

It is blindingly obvious that "the people who kept telling us it was a crisis weren’t acting like a crisis. They kept their big houses, SUVs full of bodyguards, and private jets. They’re like fervent abolitionists who never got around to freeing their own slaves." Al Gore used his climate change millions to buy a multi-million dollar beach house, even though he continues to scare people with reports of rapid sea level rise. Would you buy a beach house if you really believed rapid sea level rise was a valid threat? This is not lost on the average American. They are not as dumb as the Democrats think they are.

The hysteria began to be churned by the Charney report in the late 1970's, and it was that survey by US scientific bureaucrats that found estimates of temperature increases from CO2 doublings to be from 1.5C to 4.5C. Forty years and tens (if not hundreds) of billions of dollars spent, and the estimates have now been tightened by successive IPCC Assessments to be from 1.5C to 4.5C.

"A good indicator of why climate change as an issue is over can be found early in the text of the Paris Agreement. The “nonbinding” pact declares that climate action must include concern for “gender equality, empowerment of women, and intergenerational equity” as well as “the importance for some of the concept of ‘climate justice.’ ” Another is Sarah Myhre’s address at the most recent meeting of the American Geophysical Union, in which she proclaimed that climate change cannot fully be addressed without also grappling with the misogyny and social injustice that have perpetuated the problem for decades."

Seriously, that is some really sweet phraseology.

Maybe KVMR can host a town hall meeting on climate gender intersectionality.

As Hayward points out, “A good indicator of why climate change as an issue is over can be found early in the text of the Paris Agreement. The “nonbinding” pact declares that climate action must include concern for “gender equality, empowerment of women, and intergenerational equity” as well as “the importance for some of the concept of ‘climate justice.’ ” Yes, you heard that right – the politically correct world is definitely pivoting away from the unconvincing consensus science about global warming to something more fuzzy and currently in vogue – social justice and identity politics issues of which there are an uncounted number just waiting to be raised into people’s consciousnesses. Hayward calls this “the last gasp of a cause that has lost its vitality.”

Yeah.....towards the end I imagine it was going a little like this.....

"World to End Tomorrow; Women and Minorities Most Affected"
A future NYTs headline per Mort Sahl.
The AGW scam works too darn well for the collectivists to give it up now. There are AGW nabobs on record as openly admitting they don't even care about the science beyond it being useful for their real goal of getting rid of capitalism. There are thousands of teachers out there actively brain-washing students year after year that it is real and needs to be stopped by methods that always just happen to line up perfectly with the same sorts of nostrums advocated by the commies and lefties for decades.
The ruling elites in their dachas are, per usual, immune to the laws and rules we proles must be made to follow. Anything calling itself science that can teach that CO2 is a 'pollutant' should have been laughed out of the real science community long ago. I notice that it hasn't happened.

Steven Hayward is a skeptic of global warming and, as such, is a member of the "Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation," which describes itself as a "network of about 60 Christian theologians, natural scientists, economists, and other scholars educating for Biblical earth stewardship, economic development for the poor, and the proclamation and defense of the good news of salvation by God's grace, received through faith in Jesus Christ's death and resurrection."

This guy is certain to provide us with an unbiased, scientific, and logical view on climate change :-) Hayward is a fundamentalist Christian who believes the earth is 6,000 years old. See his book: "Mere Environmentalism: A Biblical Perspective on Humans and the Natural World" His grasp of reality is based on scripture, not science.

Typical progressive response. When you cannot discuss the science, attack the messenger. What do you disagree with in Steven Hayward article and why, make your case that his arguments do not hold up to analysis? Attacking the author, rather than his ideas does not add to our understanding of the issues. Please share your analysis.

Russ-
I read book reviews and not press releases about said books.
If I want to know how different companies' vehicles compare, I won't ask the closest Ford salesman.
If I want to read about the science of climate change, I won't bother reading something written by someone who doesn't believe in science.
If you believe Jesus had a pet dinosaur, you will likely lap up what Hayward has to say.

Russ 1019am - Over the last years since 'jon smith' joined us, I have found him to be poorly read and an ill-informed practitioner of obtuse logic. Hoping that he will submit a substantive rejoinder to an issue is an exercise in futility. As confirmation, we note that Hayward was not giving scientific arguments, but an assessment of what many authors and public opinion polls have also corroborated about the fading currency of the global warming issue. That little nuance went right over the head of Mr smith.

George, the evolution of the far right beliefs are perfectly expressed by your admission, ". . .neither Dr Hayward nor, for that matter, these commentaries have been telling readers and listeners that climate change, formerly sold as global warming, is not happening. Of course it is, and humans are no doubt contributing to this change.'

Not long ago right wingers declared climate change as a complete hoax and compared it with the lay prediction of a coming ice age in Popular Science magazine. That was followed by a nagging admission that there might be something to climate change but it would be impossible for humans to contribute (arrogant they said). Today, you are not only agreeing that climate change is a matter of fact but that humans actually do contribute to it. Tomorrow, perhaps, you might come to the conclusion that we had better address the issue rather than wish it away. I think you have come a long way.

Hahaha...Ya gotta have a sense of humor regarding those elected and employed in our government who work for us taxpayers. A comparison between the salaries and benefits of payers and players would be shocking. (Remember that the players pay taxes with tax revenue they collect). Have our state players found another excuse to get more money from payers using water conservation? It's the latest fiasco making the rounds...
According to Snopes it's mostly false..."The laws do not render it illegal for Californians to do laundry and take showers on the same day...
On 3 June 2018, multiple web sites falsely reported that it is now “against the law” for Californians to shower and do laundry on the same day, thanks to supposedly draconian water conservation legislation signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown......The bills in question, Senate Bill 606 and Assembly Bill 1668, were indeed signed into law by Governor Brown on 31 May 2018 (and Brown has indeed reached his term limit as governor). Neither bill, however, carries language penalizing consumers for taking a shower and doing laundry on the same day. Instead, they outline conservation mandates for water districts and municipalities, and water agencies can be fined if they fail to meet conservation goals (but not until 2027).https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/california-laundry-and-shower/
During a local discussion one logical person commented..."They better get better at water conservation on their end before asking us to comply with this. No more protecting the smelt fish in Sacramento River, no more having nothing in place to store rainwater from huge storms."
Hahaha....It reminded me about the time the Nevada Irrigation District was trying to get a meter put on our well by claiming leaking ditch water was responsible for the water in our well that was 200 ft. beneath the surface.

Jon Smith: 'Climate Change has run its course. In short, "the debate is over."'

I think what I'm picking up is more these points...

. The current science is shitty and is poor at prediction. It's probably best not to make huge public policy decisions based on this.
. It's probably best to solve any real problems, assuming you are tolerably sure about them, with solutions that actually work. The 'green' part of green solutions tends to be the color of the money.
. It was a mistake to tie together ecological concerns with identity politics (and/or a huge redistribution of wealth). Stick to one thing.

To tell you the truth, I'm just going with the idea that the future of worldwide ecological health is in the hands of the Chinese and the subSaharan Africans. Good luck on steering that boat.

Probably easier to solve in terms of resources, but I guess it's harder to make money at a non-profit by trying to bug Third World nations about pollution. It's always more fun to wave signs in front of an oil company headquarters since there's a Starbucks nearby.

jons 1209pm - The record of the last 12 years on that is here for all to see. Please cite any support for your bullshit about RR's denial of climate change. The position of this blog has not changed a whit during its lifetime, and my own position on global warming as a scientist was already a matter of record before RR. But the Left has done quite a log of dancing on the issue in order to avoid confronting the mishandling and interpretation of data, the lack of science describing critical processes affecting climate, and the total inadequacy of the general circulation models.

Not "the science is settled", "jon". More that the science is settling.

Settling to about a 1.2C increase in temperature for a doubling of atmospheric CO2. Less than the IPCC officially accepted rate of between 1.5C and 4.5C, with above 3C being pretty much discounted by even the true believers. It takes at least a 2.0C increase for doubled CO2 to have positive feedback events.

This makes man made warming small compared to natural variations, and we're expecting those variations to jog COLD here on Planet Earth over the next few decades.

Don't worry in the short run... summertime approaches and there will probably be a heat wave or two where those "get used to the heat" stories will motivate people to believe in AGW. Until it gets cold.

Scenes, China and the Indian subcontinent are the mass drivers of humanity and CO2 at the moment.

Climate Change has Run Its Course, and we are a witness to that claim on this very blog. Outside of jon smith, none of the usual progressive commentators have come forward to post counter arguments. They have made a conscious decision not to comment on climate change or global warming as it is not of sufficient interest to invest time and energy in an argument, plus the time to frame the discussion and type a reply. They are living proof that climate change as an issue that has run the course. In the past, we have witnessed a vigorous defense of anthropogenic climate change. Today none is evident, beyond jon smith’s weak attempt to slay the messenger that interest in climate change is waining and will be replaced by a larger insolvable problem, such as social justice in AI predictions and decision making.

Hayward's point of climate change running its course is from the perspective that its claims on our purse and freedoms are no longer expanding. It is, of course, still practiced in certain pockets around the world, as are the practices of other faith-based systems.

To be fair, the lack of an ability to edit a post can make me crazy. I never bother to proofread (a fault, I realize) and it just kills me to see a misspelling, the same word used in adjacent sentences, crazy phrases due to changing only one section of a sentence, etc.

When you just bang out some words and smack that 'post' button, ya git what ya git.

Climate Change has run its course? I liken it to the medical marijuana debate here locally. After all the endless packed meetings at the Rude Centet, after countless articles, impassioned speeches, dire warnings that Nevada City would roll up and be a ghost town without it, after bold predictions of the pot of gold it would bring to local government coffers and without a few dispensaries people would die......that time is running out and our growers would miss out......after all that, it really was not an local election issue, all in all. One can only maintain the hype and hysteria for only so long, then move on and look at the other items on life’s menu. All the above is just my opinion.

“The White House said Trump would depart mid-morning on Saturday, skipping sessions on climate change and the environment.”

Hmmm. Well, missing the Ocean Warming movies presented by Justin and Frenchy is not the end of the world, I hope. On to Singapore. Dennis Rodman had been spotted there in a white wedding dress! Melanie not seen in Ontario, suicide watch intensives.

Here are some fact for jon smith to deal with. Wealthy organizations sunk $150 million to sway U.S. climate opinion and they failed.

Despite more than $150 million being invested in messaging, polls show that the push has failed to register climate change as a top-tier policy concern for Americans.

A recent study detailing how and where environmental philanthropic grants are allocated shows a lack of “intellectual diversity on the climate issue,” according leading political scientist, Roger Pielke, Jr.

The study, authored by Matthew Nisbet, Professor of Communication Studies and Affiliate Professor of Public Policy and Urban Affairs at Northeastern University, analyzed $556.7 million in “behind-the-scenes” grants distributed by 19 major environmental foundations from 2011-2015 in the immediate aftermath of the failure to pass cap-and-trade legislation in 2010.